Q&A.pdf

As of 9 August 2017, the Government would like to provide the following answers to questions asked about RFQ solicitation W9127N-17-Q-0047.

1) I see that there are two sets of maps under Attachment 2 that delineate a large "Area of Inventory" that look like numerous sites managed as one project. These maps are:

-Base Contract-The Dalles Project (963 acres) -Contract Option 1- The John Day Project (2118 acres)

The announcement states that 45KL328 is the area of concern which is located on the north shore at the confluence of the Columbia River and Alderdale Creek. It looks like that location corresponds with Page 6 map 6. Is 45KL328 the entire area marked as "area for inventory" or the Page 6 map 6 location?

Answer: Attachment 2 has been replaced with the correct map included with amendment 1.

2) What locations within the "area for inventory" will need pedestrian survey/monitor/site visit prior to shovel testing?

Answer: The wrong map was included with the solicitation, an updated map has been added. The site is located at the mouth of Alder Creek.

3) Page 12: For Task 4, the solicitation states that “all artifacts, non-human bone or other cultural materials … on state lands recovered from the SPs and/or in the screens shall be provided to the USACE for curation….” I would like some clarification on this.

a) Does this mean all artifacts located through shovel testing must be collected?

Answer: Yes, all artifacts located through shovel testing must be collected and prepared for curation.

b) Should surface artifacts be collected as well?

Answer: Surface artifacts will not be collected, unless they are on the surface of the test unit, then they would be collected as part of level 1.

c) Are there state lands involved?

Answer: There are no state lands involved

4) Is the Additional Work Statement to be completed after literature review (as the description indicates), or is it to be completed after subsurface testing (as the order of tasks indicates)?

Answer: The intent is to make the determination for additional work as soon as possible. As stated in the solicitation, the additional work statement will be delivered no later than 90 days after contract award.

5) What is being Tested and Boundary Definition

Answer: The intent of the scope is to excavate round shovel test probes (not square test units). 30-cm diameter unit would be acceptable.

6) The SOW indicates evaluative testing should be undertaken with up to fifty 50x50-cm units, excavated to 100 cm below the surface, if possible or necessary. There are several related issues.

a) Why 50-cm 2 units?

Answer: It is acceptable if the probes are round and less than 50-cm in diameter.

b) Why only 50 units?

Answer: The intent of this project is to

i. determine the presence/absence of any archaeological materials

ii. determine the depth and nature of previous soil disturbance (or lack thereof)

iii. gather stratigraphic/geomorphic contextual information

iv. gather information about the nature, integrity and significance of any identified resources

The intent in the scope was not to intensively test within the known site boundary, but rather to use shovel test probes to identify the extent of the site boundary. Using technical expertise and best judgment the archeologist would then place additional units within the site boundary to identify features, document depth and integrity of deposits.

c) Why no 1-m2 units? The 50-cm2 units are small units which provide a coarse understanding of horizontal and vertical distribution of materials, but they are usually insufficient for evaluative testing. That is, small units are a useful first step, but larger 1m2 units are absolutely necessary to properly evaluate the site, understand stratigraphy, obtain sufficient volumes of site matrix to screen, and provide specific management recommendations. Note that stating that 50-cm2 units can simply be combined into larger, 1-m2 units, misses the point. A large unit (i.e., 1-m2) is not simply a collection of four small units (i.e., 50cm2). Rather, these small and large units have very different archaeological purposes, provide different types of information at different scales. Large and small units are complimentary but not the same. Finally, combining four 50x50s into 1x1-m units would quickly use up the available units.

Answer: 1 x 1 meter units could be used within the site boundary to assess features.

d) Why 1/8-inch mesh? While we absolutely see the value in using fine mesh where appropriate

(e.g., sites with abundant microfauna, historic beads, pressure flakes that add to the site’s interpretive value), we do not feel it is warranted at this historic townsite.

Answer: As long as the contractor can provide justification for using ¼ inch screen and the

Government’s technical lead provides written approval that it is okay to not use 1/8 inch.

7) No actual map of the site area was included with the RFP. The only maps were for the JD Priority Area Survey.

Please provide a project APE.

Answer: The correct map has been included with amendment 1.

8) Are the original, detailed pre-reservoir maps of the area available?

Answer: Yes, original detailed pre-reservoir maps should be available for this area

9) Reviewing site ownership information on the county assessor’s office suggests that much of the site is on private lands. Is this correct? The RFP indicated land access would be obtained, but what is the likelihood of having access to all parts of the site for this effort?

Answer: The county assessor’s data is incorrect. The site is located on USACE land, the contractor will have access to the property with the exception of the RR ROW.